Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis reveals reduced metric distortion in multi-winner elections on a line metric, suggesting superior committee selection under utilitarian additive costs.
We study the problem of minimizing metric distortion in multi-winner elections, where a committee of size k is selected from a set of candidates based on voters’ ordinal preferences. We assume that voters and candidates are embedded on a line metric, and social cost is determined by the underlying metric distances. The distortion of a voting rule is the worst-case ratio between the social cost of the elected committee and an optimal committee. Previous work has focused on the q -cost model, in which a voter’s cost is given by the distance to their q th closest committee member. Here, we study the additive cost , where a voter’s cost is the sum of distances to all committee members. We introduce the Polar Comparison Rule and analyze its distortion under utilitarian additive cost. We show that it achieves a distortion upper bound of almost 2.33 for all committee sizes k > 4, improving upon the previously best-known upper bound of 3. Moreover, for k = 2 and k = 3, we establish tight distortion bounds of 2.41 and 2.33, respectively. We also derive lower bounds that depend on the parity of k and analyze the behavior of distortion for small and large committee sizes. Finally, we extend our results to the egalitarian additive cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Babashah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: